Director, Sense About Science USA, which advocates for an evidence based approach to science and technology and for clinical trial transparency. Editor, STATS.org, a collaboration between the American Statistical Association and Sense About Science USA. Visiting Fellow, Cornell University. I have written about data and statistics and how they are interpreted in our so-called "knowledge economy," especially in relation to risk and regulation. I've written for the New Yorker online, Harvard Business Review, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. I speak regularly about the media's coverage of science and statistics and scientific communication. Educated at Trinity College Dublin, Georgetown, and Columbia.

Why Nick Kristof's Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Us All

Last May, Deborah Blum, a Pulitzer-winning science writer and a professor of journalism at the University of Wisconsin, published a column pleading with the New York Times’ opinion columnist Nick Kristof to stop writing about chemical risk:

“…if we, as journalists, are going to demand meticulous standards for the study and oversight of chemical compounds then we should try to be meticulous ourselves in making the case. And much as I would like it to be otherwise, I don’t see enough of that in Kristof’s chemical columns. They tend instead to be sloppy in their use of language, less than thorough, and chemophobic enough to undermine his legitimate points.”

Blum’s column got a lot of positive coverage, with many commenters further “fisking” Kristof’s apocalyptic claims and the politics behind them. It made, alas, not a blind bit of difference. At the bookend of summer, Kristof is at it again, beating his favorite chemical conspiracy theory – “Big Chem” is preventing the Federal Government from protecting Americans from dangerous, endocrine disrupting chemicals. Growing numbers of scientists are increasingly concerned and so on and so forth.

But even though Kristof claims to be reading the “peer-reviewed” research, it appears that he only reads that produced by a very, very small group of scientists – all on the farthest reaches of the environmental left. He applies no statistical or experimental criticism to these studies: they always “really” find what they claim to have found; and he seems unaware of the many non-industry funded studies or regulatory agency assessments that contradict them. There is no mention, for instance, of the 15-page point-by-point rebuttal written by the Food and Drug Administration to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s petition to ban BPA, a rebuttal which relies, primarily, on non-industry funded research.

Moreover, readers of Kristof would have no idea that the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) is presiding over a $30-million dollar evaluation of BPA, which will result in, arguably, one of the most comprehensive characterizations of the properties and the pharmacokinetics of any chemical in the history of mankind. (This is on top of the millions spent by the FDA and EPA). The NCTR is doing so in conjunction with all the federal agencies, including the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which has funded much of the “BPA is dangerous” research in the past.

Notably, the scientists who conducted this controversial research (controversial because other regulatory agencies in the US and around the world couldn’t replicate it) now have to repeat their experiments according to higher standards of reporting, statistical power, and experimental control. The studies are also being blinded so the researchers won’t know whether the lab animals they are analyzing are from the control or dose group, and the final results will be interpreted by the NCTR. Results will begin to trickle out soon.

Asking for proof of replication is not a devious, anti-science tactic on the part of what Kristof call’s “Big Chem;” it is the only way to establish validity in science. Remember – according to the much-cited work of medical mathematician John Ionnaidis, the probability that most basic research findings are wrong is surprisingly high.

I have interviewed many scientists who work with regulatory agencies around the world on BPA and other chemical issues. There is a consensus that the cluelessness of journalists like Kristof has not just wildly distorted the actual scientific evidence on BPA, it is contributing to a more general and broader assault on scientific integrity.

The outcome of this will be terrible: regulation by politics - and not by a disinterested enthusiasm for best experimental methods and the best data. This, of course, would suit Kristof’s sources just fine, because the kind of science they are doing doesn’t have anywhere close to the funding priorities, say, of cancer or AIDS. But the more alarming the message that they can put out about the low dose risks of chemicals, the more funding from the dwindling federal pot of research money they are likely to pull in, thus keeping them in academic employment. Unfortunately, an academic conflict of interest doesn’t make as good a media conspiracy story as that of “Big Chem.”

The point is that we need good regulation. We need quantified risk – not hypothetical risk. We need agencies that pursue the best possible scientific research without fear of unemployment or favor to industry or politics. Which is why Kristof’s ongoing, studied refusal to talk to the FDA on BPA is unconscionably bad opinion journalism. It is doing to the agency for Democrats what right-wing criticism is doing to the Environmental Protection Agency for Republicans: stripping both of scientific legitimacy. The public needs to know what the FDA is doing, because it is doing a lot and doing it well. And for evidence of that,don’t just take it from me, take it from NPR.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

When Kristof writes incorrect stuff about science, he’s still much, much closer to the truth than Todd Akin about pregnancy, Stephen Milloy and Tom Coburn about DDT, Anthony Watts about global warming, and a host of others on similar topics.

Thanks for your comment. Actually, in some ways, I think he’s worse. Kristof claims to be representing a scientific consensus on BPA, endocrine disruption, and the significance of epigenetics – and quite simply he isn’t. He systematically avoids the credible, serious, scientific sources that challenge his worldview – and even those within his own profession who raise ethical problems about what he writes. I doubt whether Akin will ever claim again that women have a special defense mechanism to render them immune to pregnancy from rape. And even if you dislike the politics of Stephen Milloy, he does, unlike Kristof, try and argue with rival data. As for DDT, it’s clear that there are those in the WHO who believe it should be used wisely, and they prevailed on that view a while ago until political pressure closed the door again.

and that means what? “closer to the truth” is acceptable scientific method, since it’s better than other overt examples of people talking out of their rears? maybe “introduction to logic” at the local community college should be in your future. as for “the truth”, we’re all so happy and grateful that you’ve divined it, on so many important topics. puh-lease…

kristof, like so many of the times vaunted columnists, is long on ego and self-aggrandizement, short on discipline, method, and rigorous analysis. like all of his ilk, when you have an ideological point to make, why bother with the little things. kristof has already decided what’s true, now to just find “facts” to support his ordained opinion.

Wow. I thought drawing to an inside straight was a stretch, but you’ve added a whole new layer to the term “analogy.” Nothing like taking an entire article pointing out what a poor journalist Mr. Kristof is and working in totally unrelated topics such as Akin’s idiotic comments about rape, DDT and Global Warming (or is it “Climate Change”?). I’m surprised Mr. Butterworth took the time to answer your comment, however I was glad he pointed out your obvious faulty “logic” in a polite way. I guess my question for you Mr. Darrell is what exactly does it mean to be “much, much closer to the truth”? A is A. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that saying C is A is much, much closer to the truth than D is A isn’t the answer, no matter how much the “C” answer lines up with our own philosophy …no matter how much volume we put behind it. Your type of argument is killing scientific truth in this country. I’m grateful for people like Mr. Butterworth who is willing to call out the purveyor’s of such so called “research.”

Now I worry that you were not just wrong, but intentionally so. Stephen Milloy’s politics — does he have some? — have nothing to do with it. It’s his splendid, fantastic inaccuracy, and the way he ignores completely 98% of science and carefully edits what he does allow to make it appear that it supports his claim. (“Politics” implies that one understands others must come aboard, or at least agree not to filibuster, in order to get something done; I don’t see that in Milloy at all). Milloy uses data the way most people use Kleenex.

WHO is quite clear that the science on DDT calls for its demise, as the National Academy of Sciences said in 1970. Oh, but if you’re reading Milloy and not checking his footnotes, you may believe NAS said the opposite. There are two problems with DDT that the scientists in WHO have always recognized (as opposed to the politicians who rail against WHO policy): DDT prompts pest insects to evolve around it, and abuse of the stuff causes that evolution to proceed faster; and it is an indiscriminate killer with a long life once released in the wild, killing more beneficial organisms than harmful ones. I am not persuaded to your side when you mischaracterize WHO’s careful application of science as “politics.”

Kristof may not be so careful as Rachel Carson — another punching bag of Milloy — whose footnotes still withstand all assaults 50 years later, but he’s still on the right track. We should be wary of chemical use. We should not willy-nilly assume chemicals are inert in contact with humans.

Should I be suspicious that Milloy also denies the endocrine disruptive characteristics of DDT, and that is your focus on BPA? Who is your source for science on these issues, and are they in the employ of chemical manufacturers who have an axe to grind?

You really should read what the WHO actually says about the usage of DDT, especially regarding Indoor Residual Spraying(IRS). Less than 5 minutes to look up.

“WHO gives indoor use of DDT a clean bill of health for controlling malaria” http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/

From their FAQ “Frequently asked questions on DDT use for disease vector control”: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2004/WHO_HTM_RBM_2004.54.pdf

“There are also fears that DDT may have a long-term impact on human health. Although there is currently no direct link between DDT and any negative human health effect, there is growing evidence that it may disrupt reproductive and endocrine function. Opponents of DDT use for vector control argue that its use should be curtailed on these grounds.

Advocates of the continuing use of DDT as an insecticide for disease vector control base their argument on various factors: the unacceptably high levels of mortality and morbidity caused by malaria, the proven effectiveness of DDT in significantly reducing malaria transmission, the relatively low cost of DDT interventions, and the lack of any sustainable alternative in many endemic countries. They argue that the negative environmental and other effects associated with DDT use in the past reflect the massive uptake and bioaccumulation arising from the high amounts used as general agricultural pesticide. The amount of DDT used for disease vector control is negligible compared with that used in agriculture. The advocates also argue that when strictly used indoors, as recommended by WHO, DDT poses very little if any environmental threat.”

The world is full of trade offs at the margin. Does DDT usage in disease vector control applications like IRS have downsides? Possibly. Does DDT usage in disease vector control applications like IRS have upsides? Clearly; millions not dying of malaria.

If you read through my blog postings on BPA, you’ll see the sources: none of them are industry funded; all are leading independent or regulatory scientists who have done critical work on the chemical for the purposes of risk evaluation. There is a great deal of dispute on whether some DDT should be allowed – hence the UN flip flop and subsequent brouhaha which you appear to be unaware of, but which another reader has kindly provided links to.

Although, let me add, I do agree with you that we should be wary of chemical risks (perhaps rather more for their effect on wildlife than us) such as estrogens in the water supply. This is one reason scientists at the EPA and FDA are so frustrated with the focus and tens of millions spent on BPA. It’s not really that interesting compared to other problematic compounds. If you want a really insightful look at this issue, consider Richard Sharpe’s comments in Toxicological Sciences from a couple of years ago. http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/114/1/1.full